The evidence of the executor of a will of a British man living in Belgium, has been called into question after it was revealed he hid a valuable collection of motorcycles and cars.
The saga began 1996 when Adrian Morris was appointed an executor of Owen Davies’ last will and testament, which left everything to an uncle, Clive Davies.
At the time the will was written Davies had been living in Belgium for five years with his fiancé.
A long-running family dispute between the uncle and the family in the UK meant when Davies died in 2008 his death was hidden from them for four months.
The conspiracy included a Boxing Day text message to the UK, which had been composed on the deceased man’s phone by the fiancé, cancelling a trip over the channel.
When the question of the inheritance came up, Morris went to the UK courts to prove the 1996 will.
Forced heirship
The UK family, who only learnt of their brother and son’s death from the coroner, opposed it on the basis Davies had taken Belgian domicile.
Under Belgian law, the mother receives a fixed share irrespective of any will.
According to Paul Hewitt, partner at law firm Withers, questions of domicile can be lengthier than the dispute itself.
However, in what turned out to be a three-day hearing, the judge found in favour of the UK will.
The judge made findings of fact based on Morris’ evidence, who he described as a truthful and reliable witness.
Other evidence included messages written by the deceased, who described himself as an “expat”. He also kept a house in the UK.
Since the case concluded in 2011, the uncle Clive and Morris fell out and the family in the UK learnt of a valuable collection of vehicles, which hadn’t been mentioned by the executor.
Based on this revelation, the family applied to have original decision revisited, which Morris opposed, this time unsuccessfully.
“The fact that Owen had more assets than originally disclosed at trial would almost certainly not in itself be sufficient to undermine the original 2011 decision,” comments Hewitt.
“But the fact that Adrian misled the court on that issue tainted his evidence generally.”
According to Hewitt, the return of Morris v. Davies to a UK court is “testament to the courts’ willingness to provide a remedy to those who have been the victim of false evidence”.
